<p>BTW, for essay 2, did you guys use Peter the Great westernizing Russia as an example of monarchs using science to legitimize and strengthen their power?</p>
<p>I did. but I put it under art >.<. oh well.</p>
<p>I just BSed #2. My only legitimate example was pallace of Versailles for art increasing power</p>
<p>AP Euro strategy-</p>
<p>MC: Left 10 blank, answered the rest mostly correct (?)</p>
<p>Groupings for DBQ:
I’ve studied this topic since a little kid, as I was so fascinated with how Hitler was able to establish a dictatorship in Germany.
Pro-Weimar, Reform: From Within (women, soldiers, etc.), Reform: Through Upheaval of the Republic (Commies, Nazis)</p>
<p>Essay #3 = Total BS
Used Queen Elizabeth/Henry VIII/Martin Luther vs the Catholic Church to illustrate church and state.</p>
<p>Essay #7 - Freud and Darwin are my thing
Annihilation. Darwin’s theory of evolution completely changing thought, the antithesis of the God-creation theory… Freud’s id/superego/ego theories vs the conscience</p>
<p>
Me too for some reason. After I learned about the atrocities he committed, it made me wonder how he was able to consolidate power to do such horrible acts.</p>
<p>For the DBQ a few people seem to be putting Pro-Weimar as a group. I was considering doing this as well, but how would pro-Weimar people lead to the Weimar Republic’s instability? o.O</p>
<p>That’s also something I’m wondering about. I think that the graders may not accept that group or will mark down essays with that group for going off topic.</p>
<p>Yeah, I almost did that group as well as I was desperate for a fourth group and that seemed to be the only other one…</p>
<p>yeah pro-weimar is definitely going to get marked off. The essay wasn’t about people’s opinions of the weimar republic but the factors that caused the instability of the wimar republic. The pro-weimar stuff may be used to prove biased but FOR SURE should not be part of a group. No doubt about it.</p>
<p>BUT you can still get a 9. Having more than 3 groups is one of the many expanded core points.</p>
<p>^Could I talk about people’s opinions on the instabilities of the Weimar Republic or would that be marked down as well?</p>
<p>No, that is incorrect. Groups DO NOT have to answer the questions themselves; they are simply a way of organizing the DBQ. For example, you could have an essay about how renaissance humanism changed European thought, and your groups could be by country: Britain, Italy, HRE, France. This wouldn’t be answering the question IN ANY WAY, but they would still be legitament groups.</p>
<p>Pro-Weimar, likewise, IS a legitament group. There were many pro-Weimar people quoted in the documents. The ONLY qualification for a grouping is that there are 2 or more people who fit the label.</p>
<p>I agree with your example about the countries and humanism. However, doing a pro-Weimar group almost contradicts the question. I doubt a pro-Weimar group of people would have ANY effect on the instability of the WR.</p>
<p>I was really hoping to have an FRQ or DBQ about the Cold War, since that’s my era of specialty (when we were going over past FRQ prompts in class, I would have given anything to have the ‘Compare Stalin and Gorbachev’s economic and political policies in the Soviet Union’. Unf.); anyways, I felt like I did lackluster on the FRQs, mostly because I couldn’t spit out enough historical information, etc. Ugh.</p>
<p>I’m giving myself a margin of missing at most 10 questions on the MC. I’ve been trying to recall questions all the questions I’ve guessed on, and so far it talleys up to 7 or 8. I just hope I haven’t miscalculated. :</p>
<p>DBQ; while the prompt was easy, I was totally pressed for time. Honestly, once the second section starts timing, it’s just a race between the timer and me. Didn’t have time to include a conclusion, but I made a mental checklist of getting all the core points (and if the AP readers so bless me, expanded, too). I scrawled in one last note on bias on Hitler’s document, and I’m kindov worrying about that. Also, I’m fretting over whether the AP readers will think I’ve misinterpreted the documents, too. My groupings were kindov unconventional.</p>
<p>FRQ; #2. Honestly, I have no idea why I picked this one. Should’ve re-read the prompts and gone with #4, since I knew more on that. I have no idea. I think I panicked (I had 45-50 minutes left when I was done with my DBQ, so I decided to just dive into the next essay). Easily my worst. I’m hoping for a 3 or 4 (and that’s if they’re generous), because, man, I slapped some lame excuses for historic examples – couldn’t come up with any concrete dates or events (like “In 313 CE, Constantine ordered the Edict of Milan” or whatever bs like that). Just kept on referring to France, Louis XIV, Richelieu, Baroque art (Caravaggio) – and FOR THE LIFE OF ME, I could NOT remember who did that famous portrait of Le Roi Soleil showing off his legs [Hyacinthe Rigaud] – Palace of Versailles, etc; state endorsement of scientific academies (couldn’t think of any names, DAMMIT; on a second note, I should’ve coralled Malpighi as an example, fff) in London and Paris; all bolstering state’s presence in blah blah blah. : Felt like all I did was list general trends about absolutism in France, and I only managed to mention England for the royal academies – and on a peripheral note, Catherine the Great, though I think what I said was incorrect. dfsdf. Just, bleh; do not feel confident about this at all. Doesn’t help I spit it out in, like, what? 10 minutes?</p>
<p>FRQ; #7. Now here was something I could actually write about. Wrote three body paragraphs addressing each of issues/impacts listed in the prompt for both. Felt like I kept on saying the same things, though; still kindov wishy-washy. I think I managed to throw in some pertinent background. Ideally, I’d like a 7+, but in reality, I think I’m getting a 5 or so.</p>
<p>LOL I’m riding on my DBQ and MC for a 5. Please, AP readers. Be thou my good! D:</p>
<p>eta Does that sound reasonable for a 5? 87.5% MC correct; 7 DBQ; 3 FRQ #2; 5 FRQ #7?</p>
<p>//I agree with your example about the countries and humanism. However, doing a
//pro-Weimar group almost contradicts the question. I doubt a pro-Weimar group of people
//would have ANY effect on the instability of the WR.</p>
<p>Yes, but as I said, that couldn’t matter less. If 6 documents used the word “unicorn” a lot, that could be one of your groups. Now, granted, it’s not the most intelligent group, and you might not receive full credit in the “analysis” column if all of your groups were of this nature, but it’s a legitament group nonetheless.</p>
<p>@rts9230 by that I was assuming that she was talking about the people who were in favor of the weimar republic and not their opinions on the instability of the weimar republic.</p>
<p>but if you did that, then yeah you can definitely group it that way IF you’re talking about their opinions on the instability of the wiemar republic and not make the fact that they are pro-Weimar the dominant topic in your paragraph (that’s just proving bias)</p>
<p>i studied so hard for a Cold War FRQ and was ****ed when there was not only no Cold War FRQ, but ONE post-1945 multiple choice question. I should have guessed that, since the 2009 test was so cold-war-centric, but damn it!</p>
<p>When the essay prompt read, “compare and contrast,” I accidentally read it as “analyze” instead. As a result, I only really compared and never explicitly contrasted the two topics in my essay. What do you think is the highest score that I could receive on that essay?</p>